Allowed

Mr.Lomada Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Mr.P.Ramasubba Reddy

Telangana HC1 Apr 2013CMA/1207/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1207 of 2004, the Hon'ble Single Bench allowed the appeal filed by a lorry cleaner who suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee. The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was insufficient and enhanced the award to Rs.3,50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.

Mr.Lomada Venkata Ramana Reddy Vs Mr.P.Ramasubba Reddy — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1207 OF 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The petitioner in O.P. No.985 of 1995 assailing the impugned order dated 31^st December, 2003 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation since he was awarded only Rs.2,46,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition, though he claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

¶5

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the O.P.

¶6

3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that the petitioner was working as cleaner of lorry bearing No.AP04 T 3132 and was earning Rs.1,000/-per month besides Rs.50/batta per day. On 31.05.1995 at 10.30 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding in the said lorry from Hyderabad to Kadapa and when the lorry reached Gaganpahad, the lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit a DCM van bearing No.AP09T 8019 which was coming from opposite direction. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and his leg was amputated above knee, and muscles from the left leg thigh was removed and put to amputated portion of right leg and grafting was done. He was in Osmania hospital from 31.05.1995 to 17.07.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Hyderabad twice for check up. The petitioner took treatment at Kadapa and purchased medicines. The petitioner has become disabled due to amputation of his right leg above the knee and as such he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on all counts against respondent No.1, being the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2, being the insurer of the lorry.

¶7

4. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is stated in the counter that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of DCM bearing No. AP 09T 8019. The petitioner has to prove that he was earning Rs.1,000/- per month besides Rs.50/- batta per day and that the driver of the lorry had valid driving licence at the time of accident.

¶8

5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the Tribunal framed an issue as to the entitlement of the petitioner and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation.

¶9

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself got examined as PW.1 besides examining three other witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

¶10

7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record and after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,46,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition and that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner for

¶11

enhancement.

¶12

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company.

¶13

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner - appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation in view of the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner and the expenditure incurred towards medical expenses and other expenses during the course of treatment and that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner was aged 25 years at the timer of accident. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal though appreciated the decisions relied on by the petitioner, failed to award the just compensation.

¶14

10. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 -insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation by considering the evidence on record, and as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference from this Court.

¶15

11. Petitioner as PW.1 stated that the accident occurred due

¶16

¶17

negligent driving of the lorry by PW.2 and that P.S. Rajendranagar registered a case in Crime No.144 of 1995 against the lorry driver-PW.2. PW.2 - driver of the lorry stated that the accident occurred as their lorry dashed against the tempo. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against PW.2 - driver of the lorry. Further, the driver of the DCM Van gave complaint to the Police stating that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of PW.2. In view of the same, it is crystal clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver-PW.2. As per the material on record, the lorry was insured and the policy was in force on the date of accident.

¶18

12. So far as the injury suffered by the petitioner is concerned, the evidence of PW.3 - Civil Surgeon, who issued Ex.A.5 - disability certificate, is that because of amputation of right leg, the petitioner is unable to drive any vehicle and the disablement is 80%. The evidence of PW.4 - who treated the petitioner, is that the right lower limb of petitioner was amputated from the level of knee joint and he was in the hospital from 31.05.1995 to 17.07.1995 and that he suffered 70% permanent disability. PW.4 further stated that the petitioner is not in a position to drive the vehicle and he requires assistance. The driver of the DCM van had mentioned in Ex.A.1- complaint that cleaner of the lorry along with driver sustained injuries in the accident. Ex.A.2- wound certificate shows that the petitioner sustained injury in the motor accident. Though, the petitioner was treated in Osmania General Hospital, which is a Government hospital, he might have purchased medicines from outside as shown in Ex.A.4 and the same was spoken to by PW.4. The evidence of PW.4 is that the petitioner cannot walk without the assistance of crutches and therefore, it can be said that the petitioner is not able to do his job and the amputation affects his future prospects.

¶19

13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,46,500/-. This Court is of the view, in the light of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount is on the lower side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to suitably modify the award impugned, which could be done in the following manner: 1. For Permanent disability : Rs.80,000/-

¶20

2. For pain and suffering : Rs. 60,000/3. For loss of earning power in future : Rs.1,00,000/4. For loss of earning during the period when the petitioner was hospitalised for about 1 ½ months : Rs. 3,000/-

¶21

5. For mental agony : Rs. 50,000/6. For medical expenses : Rs. 15,000/7. For transport charges & extra nourishment : Rs. 20,000/8. For attendant charges : Rs. 12,000/-

¶22

9. For mental anguish suffered by wife : Rs. 10,000/-

¶23

14. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner – appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand ) only, with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned.

¶24

15. In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,46,500/- to Rs.3,50,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

 ___________________

¶26

Date:01.04.2013 Stp

Mr.Lomada Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Mr.P.Ramasubba Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Lomada Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Mr.P.Ramasubba Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kondru Subbalamma Vs Paddam Mutyalu

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs G.v.Premlatha

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Gotivada Demudu

Mr.R.Ramesh Babu Vs Mr.T.v.L.Narasimha Rao

Dr P. Rama Krishna Veni Vs Tenneti Malleswari

R. Jaganath Singh Vs S. Mohammad Gouse